I’m confused. How could this be? Aren’t police officers in the US persons of unquestionable judgement? 
**
S&S** would have us believe all the decisions they make would survive any criminal inquiry, right? Especially when they interact with the public. Because, um… fear for life…
Maybe that gay guy was trying to give them HIV? It must be something reasonable, right?
Are you suggesting police have less of a civil right to stomp a queer than the regular public? How dare you?
He had a cast on his ankle. That’s a blunt weapon. Which means he was wielding a deadly weapon. They were right to sho… ah. Didn’t shoot him. Stomped on him and called him names, eh ?
Well maybe it was a sting, have you thought about that ? Maybe they were loudly calling him a faggot and stomping his guts to try and draw out the *real *homophobic people in the neighbourhood, who’d naturally want to join in the fun at which point the cops would have them bang to rights.
It’s theoretically conceivable if extremely far-fetched, ergo we must accept it as axiomatic truth, per Smapti rules.
I have to admit, I’m morbidly curious how the S&S twins will defend this one.
Well, Steophan’s easy and boring : they haven’t been convicted by a jury, ergo and ipso facto they did nothing wrong. If and when they do get convicted by a jury, they’ll become Schrödinger’s criminals.
Smapti’s really the one to watch for entertaining, creative insanity.
No-one’s going to defend that. That really is the equivalent of the 1950s style beatings of black people that (it’s claimed) are still going on.
But if people here really can’t see the difference between a hateful (in the legal, hate-crime sense) beating and as shooting in self defence, I can’t help them.
If anyone’s got a cite for a bunch of cops pulling a crippled black man from his house, then beating him whilst screaming racial slurs, I’d be happy to condemn that too. Preferably one from this century, I’m aware it used to be all too common.
Total meatheads: It’s like The Joker’s goon squad again. How can they be so useless, and get paid?
It’s kind of getting to the point where the public need to wear the body cams, not the police.
Why do you anarchists want to deny police their first amendment rights?
I don’t know why you would expect me to. If this is as cut and dry as it appears to be, then the officers were clearly in the wrong.
With the increased calls for criminal coddling, Florida cops now have to stand up to terrorists with nothing more than stun guns. Watch here to see officers in Key West bravely take down a terrorist(*) who was resisting arrest with arms held up. The article mentions other instances where brave Florida officers tasered perps; pro-law and order Dopers will be pleased to learn that some of the taserings were fatal.
(* - Although it’s been several months, Florida authorities have yet to reveal name of or charges against the taseree. I assume secrecy is maintained because of al-Qaeda involvement.)
From your link:
I’m absolutely loving how normal, everyday citizens are fighting abusive policing with cameras. If it weren’t for this family being quick enough to whip out a phone, we wouldn’t know this happened. It would be the police’s word against the old man’s.
I wonder how many more videos do we have to be bombarded with before all of us, even S&S, stop automatically giving the police the benefit of the doubt.
This conversation is confusing. Those two statements are logically equivalent.
If you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that X, then this amounts to a need to prove that any doubt that X is unreasonable. This, in turn, amounts to a need to prove that any claim that not-X is unreasonable. So:
If you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self defense, then this amounts to a need to prove that any doubt that it was not self-defense is unreasonable. This in turn, amounts to a need to prove that any claim that it was not-not-self-defense is unreasonable.
Taking out the double negation, you get that it amounts to a need to prove that any claim that it was self-defense is unreasonable.
There’s a lot of syntactic substitution going on here so it’s possible that I’ve committed a typographical error somewhere here, but I am pretty sure I haven’t. And if I haven’t, then the two statements you guys made are in fact exactly equivalent–and I can’t, therefore, figure out what you’re disagreeing about exactly.
Sandra Bland was arrested for not being deferential to a cop. This article asserts that white women can generally sass a cop with impunity, and backs up with statistics the charge that white and black woman are treated differently.
You can protest your rights or be black. Choose just one.
ISTM, the major disagreement between Steophan and Fear Itself (and between Steophan and me) is what “beyond reasonable doubt” means in real terms. Steophan seems to be saying that maximum credence should be given by authorities to any claim of self defense unless credible negating evidence is turned up. And this credence should be so broad that charges and/or prosecution should only take place where such negating evidence is available.
I think in any real world society, this sort of approach is untenable, and in fact is not the approach taken by police and prosecutorial agencies (except, unfortunately, in the case of shootings by LEOs). In actual fact, if convincing corroborative evidence does not exist to support an assertion of self defense, authorities are obligated to prosecute the case.
I think it’s an utter, almost adolescent fantasy to believe that any agents of the court anywhere are required to believe any individual’s proffered version of events. This includes eye witnesses against the suspect/defendant or the suspect’s mother who swears he was having tea with her all night and couldn’t have been “rioting with those hooligans.”
Steophan says I have to have physical evidence that it was not self defense. Absent a video, a cop could not be convicted. All he has to say is, “He resisted and grabbed for my gun.” Guilty. Even eyewitnesses would be of marginal help in a case of a cop’s word against a citizen’s word.
I am arguing since deciding the validity of a self defense claim is not directly determining guilt or innocence, the prosecutor does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. He can develop a line of reasoning casting doubt on the claim of self defense that the jury finds reasonable. The semantics seem equivalent, but the standard is different. The law does not say the claim of self defense has to meet the standard “beyond all reasonable doubt”. It just says the claim of self defense must be “reasonable”. The determination of guilt or innocence has a higher standard than judging the claim of self defense.
I’m pretty sure this is something that differs between jurisdictions/states. If the internets aren’t lying to me, it looks to me like some states (and this is very definitely NOT uniform across 49 states as Steophan would have it) do require that the prosecution prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the legal definition of self-defense is not satisfied in the specific event.
In practice, I think that can be done without any direct, physical evidence. Because “reasonable doubt” can be overcome (or created) by a reasonable argument. And a reasonable argument might very well be made by a prosecutor citing a combination of strong circumstantial evidence against the defendant and a lack of corroborative evidence from the defense.
No, she was arrested for failing to signal a lane change.
The police are inherently entitled to the benefit of a doubt. It is their job to use force to apprehend lawbreakers. The fact that you are not willing to extend it to them says more about you than it does about me.
I’m pretty sure that’s why she was stopped. Do you have a cite for that being the reason for her arrest?